1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Hadayat Hussain, petitioner herein, has challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 2-6-1992 whereby his revisior petition against the judgment of the Civil Judge dated 28-2-1991 dismissing his suit for perpetual injunction and that of the appellate Court dated 7-2-1992 dismissing his appeal against it, was dismissed in limine.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for the issuance of perpetual injunction against Haq Nawaz respondent claiming that he was in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals comprising Khasra No, 194 situated in the area of Village Chakara, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi and that the defendant/respondent having purchased a fraction of it from Khattar Khan, co- sharer, is bent upon dispossessing him without recourse to his remedy for partition. The respondent contested the suit and in his written statement denied the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit land and asserted his own possession. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned Civil Judge on the appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/petitioner had miserably failed to establish his exclusive possession over the disputed Khasra numbers and, under the law, had no right to the issuance of perpetual injunction. This finding has been concurred by the appellate as well as the revisional Court.
3. ' We have heard Malik Mukhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. It has concurrently been held as a fact by the lower three forums that the petitioner is not in possession of Khasra No,
194. He admits in his plaint that the defendant/respondent had purchased 1 Kanal 4 Marlas from one of the co-sharers. The documentary evidence placed on the record proves the joint ownership of the parties alongwith others and, as such, both have right to possession of their respective ownership. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive possession over the entire Khasra No, 194 therefore his prayer for restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in his alleged possession was rightly declined by the three forums below.
4. ' Finding no merit in the instant petition, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.